This is the first in a new series, an expansion of my both my Natural Law column and Second Amendment and related columns. Here, I briefly examine the ancient and eternal theories behind the basic rights which gave rise to the doctrine enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Legal practitioners and law and political science scholars, along with the general public, many politicians, and the media, often make the common mistake of looking only to the text of the Constitution (State or federal) or recent court cases in order to gain perspective into the meaning and/or application of the Second Amendment (and related State protections). While government protection of our rights is vital (the only reason for government), rights do not come from government.

My examination here is theoretic in nature and, thus, seeks out existential sources which provide both definition and supporting argumentative and empirical evidence which are fixed throughout history and across all geographic areas. Of course, as my ultimate view is towards the American experience, I will pay closer attention to sources from Western civilization.

The Bible is replete with approval of self-defense. “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5:8. This would seem to encompass the responsibility to keep one’s family safe to the extent possible. “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” Exodus 22:2-3. This provision is the basis for the common-law doctrine against burglary, originally extended to night-time attacks. The matter of daylight adds an interesting perspective. Again, this passage addresses a thief, not a would-be murderer of rapist. It is divine commentary on the value of human life over mere possessions when an opportunity exists to examine the intent of a criminal. While it is not a prohibition against using force to deter a thief, the provision indicates the Lord’s wish that force not exceed the attendant circumstantial need.

Paul continues this theme of limited aggression in Romans 12:19: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'” Again, God does not seem opposed to immediate use of force to deter violence but, once danger has passed, he commands that we leave judgment to him. This is backed by the Old Testament: “Do not say, ‘I will repay evil’; wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you.” Proverbs 20:22. Again, for Christians, after the fact of a crime, the matter is God’s to handle. This is the basis for a general prohibition against vigilante justice.

In Romans 13, often mis-cited as a justification for any and all government action being divine, Paul extolls the virtues of political agencies instituted in God’s Name. When such an entity exists, then it has God’s authority to pursue prosecution of criminal matters. I refuse to accept that this concept applies to all governments – I doubt God approved of Hitler’s action, for instance. Rev. Chuck Baldwin, http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/, has extensively commented on this subject – http://www.romans13truth.com/.

Jesus Christ, himself, tacitly endorsed armed defense: “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” Luke 22:36. I say “tacitly” because of the caveats Jesus placed on the use of force, essentially limiting it to only urgent circumstances. Christ urged us to “turn the other cheek” when possible. Matthew 5:39. He also admonished Peter to sheath his sword while repairing the injure Peter had inflicted with his sword. John 18:11. Jesus, while defending the 10 Commandments, issued an 11th: “love one another.” John 13:34. The Son’s words places strict constraints on the Father’s allowance of the use of force. It does not foreclose the concept.

(The ultimate Defender. Google.)

Jesus only once resorted to the use of force, personally. When He discovered the money-changers (the banksters of their time) abusing the Holiness of the Temple, Jesus violently drove them away. John 2:15. This underscores the possibility of defense as an immediate solution, without resort to formal authority or the eventual actions of the Lord. The Church has formally detailed both the right to such defense as well as the moral duty of such action in need. “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”): 2265 (emphasis added)(see also CCC: 1909).

The Church also commands dignity be afforded to the human body, generally: “This dignity entails the demand that he should treat with respect his own body, but also the body of every other person, especially the suffering” CCC: 1004. While this backs the general prohibition against unlawfully harming others, it also reminds the Believer to respect even his enemy and attempt to limit his forcible response to criminal activity as far as possible to minimize harm.

“… [I]n the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self.” Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangeliun Vitae (The Gospel of Life), 1995.

The eminent scholar, David Kopel, has documented the general agreement among Eastern Religions along these ideas. In his review of Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, Kopel explodes common myths that these religions do not allow for proper use of self-defense. David B. Kopel. “Self-Defense in Asian Religions” Liberty Law Review 2 (2007): 79, 80-81 (http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/20).

Kopel’s expose is excellent. He also touches on the Eastern version of Baldwin’s critique of Romans 13: “Although Confucianism, like most other religions, has been used by tyrants to claim that revolution is immoral, Confucius himself ordered a revolution against an oppressive regime.” Id, at 163. Only the “religion” of the State would decree that the government is above the Natural Law.

Commenting on Exudus 2, above, Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “it is much more lawful to defend one’s life than one’s house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kills another in defense of his own life.” Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

“If a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s life than of another’s.” Id.

Plato noted that when one acts in true self-defense, taken as a natural right, one may actually do the criminal perpetrator (in addition to the victim and society) a service: if the criminal survives, he may reflect on his wrongdoing positively. Plato, The Republic, The Problem of Justice. Plato’s great student, Aristotle, agreed. Aristotle noted that a true case of self-defense is not necessarily a voluntary action. Thus, any suffering from the act of defense may be attributed to the aggressor and not the defender. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

The possession of weapons and their defensive usage, though regulated, was allowed in both the Roman Republic and the Empire. “We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves, so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a solider … to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all [up to, and including, death, if warranted].” Codex Justinianus 3.27.1. The Romans regarded the right to use weaponry in defense as implicit to the right itself.

The mighty Cicero opined: “There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” Cicero, “In Defence of Titus Annus Milo,” Selected Speeches of Cicero, Michael Grant translation, 1969. Again, the esteemed David Kopel gives excellent analysis to this ancient Natural Law position in The Sword and the Tome, America’s 1st Freedom, NRA, 2009.

Cicero’s titanic predecessor, the black-robed Cato, made an interesting analogy along the lines of Jesus’s act of retribution noted above (as noted by Cicero himself): Cato was asked by an ambitious Roman, “What is the most profitable about property?” Cato answered, “To raise cattle with great success.” The young man then asked, “What is the second most profitable?” Cato answered, “Raising cattle with moderate success.” The inquirer pressed again, “The third most profitable?” “Raising cattle with little success.” Finally, the young man cut to his presupposed profession, “How about money-lending?” Cato answered (somewhat in advance of Jesus), “How about murder?” Cicero, On Duties.

I by no means equate money-lending or banking with murder but it appears the subject was considered by multiple ancient sources. It seems the evil of the banksters in as eternal as natural law. Defense against the predation of this wicked class may be something to consider.

Later political theorists expounded the virtue and necessity of self-defense. John Locke described self-defense as the first among Natural Rights. Locke, Second Essay on Civil Government. Hobbes concurred in this assertion, regardless of the state of any society. Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651. Even the craven and generally useless United Nations begrudgingly attempted to acknowledge this fundamental truth: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N. General Assembly, Article 12, December 10, 1948.

In the earliest American tradition, we find acknowledgment of the Natural Law (before the adoption of the Second Amendment). The Declaration of Independence (1776) begins: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” (Emphasis added). The Declaration then enumerates the crimes of King George, among them many of which might be defended against under the doctrine explained herein.

(In case of emergency only. Google.)

Again, self-defense is a God-given, eternal right. It is also a duty, one to be exercised only in dire need and with a grave sense of responsibility. As with all matters of Natural Law, man-made legislation must attempt as closely as humanly possible to approximate the divine purposes of the Law. In the next installment of this series, I intend to examine more ancient legislation regarding weapons and self-defense, specifically Roman Law.

This is a follow-up to some of my recent columns, Posse Comitatus,A Short History of Gun Control in America, and others. The Second Amendment and its subject matter have been in the news recently as part of the never-ending “debate” over gun control. The Amendment has also received special attention from the U.S. Supreme Court twice in the past five years.

My purpose here is to explain what the Amendment means and what most commentators (even pro-firearms authors) miss in their reading and application. Even if you do not own guns or have an interest in them, this issue affects you and your Liberty. Somewhere in the writing process I realized I should have divided this into several segments. My apologies for the heft of the article. Sadly, I didn’t even get to add in half of what I should – maybe a book is in order? certainly a follow-up’s follow-up.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

(Minutemen staring down British Regulars. Google Images.)

The Second Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting, sport shooting, and weapon collecting. Those activities are important and are rights which derive from Natural Law. However, they are ancillary to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Ancillary also are the issues of self-defense and defense of others and of property from attacks by common criminals. They to are the absolute rights of the People (absolute, under appropriate circumstances). However, none of these things, which are commonly attributed to the true nature of the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership, fall under the actual purpose of the Amendment.

There are two primary reasons why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. First, the Founders wanted a heavily armed population so that the nation and the constituent States might be well defended from foreign or outside aggression and invasion. Second, and most important, the Founders wanted the People heavily armed in order to overthrow or repel the State governments or the federal, national government in the event said government ever became tyrannical in nature and operation. The true purpose of an armed people is to resist tyranny. This is not only the right of the People, it is also their solemn duty.

Politicians do not like being reminded of this fact these days. Perhaps their guilty consciences get the better of them given the nature of modern government – as close to tyrannical as just about any in history. For reasons given herein and, those which I plan to elaborate on in a future column about arms, the ticks have little to fear. As I have written elsewhere, most humans like to be controlled. In the absence of fair masters, they will take any master that comes along. I hope you, by your nature or by reading this article, are a member of the few who prefer freedom to slavery. Your existence makes the tyrants sweat.

For the longest time the Second Amendment was largely written off by the legal “profession.” When I was in law school I was told the Amendment (and a few others) didn’t really exist. I found this strange. The Amendment was there in the text of the Constitution and its plain language made perfect sense (the 10th Amendment was the same way). Try as I could, I could never locate the provision which allowed for the murder of babies. The law school community regards this right, in blasphemy, as if it had been written by God himself.

Then again, law school has little to do with the law. The one thing that was not required reading in my Constitutional law classes was the Constitution. No mention was made of the natural underpinnings of the Constitution. It’s no wonder most attorneys emerge from this environment without the slightest knowledge of whence our laws are derived. I was different, I always am. I read the old documents and inquired as to why certain things were included and excluded textually. I read a lot. At the time, the only legal textbook in print which even mentioned the 2nd Amendment was the one compiled by Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard law fame. His mention was very brief, but at least he had the curtsey to include it at all.

Most Consitutional law education focuses on two things: 1) the supreme power of the government and; 2) a few pet rights with plenty of case law material for professors to quote (the 1st Amendment, for instance). I also have columns underway to explain both the Constitution (briefly) and the convoluted subject of Constitutional law. You’ll have to wait for those.

As I said, the 2nd Amendment received little official attention for many years. Early in our history and it that of our English forebears, the concept of a well armed population was well enshrined. It was taken as a given that men would be armed. The Founders went the brave extra step and set the armed people as defenders of their own Liberty against the heinous forces of organized government.

Thomas Jefferson was rightly fearful of the problems posed by a standing government army. The Declaration of Independence was full of accounts of the crimes committed by King George through his armies. The mandate for a militia rather than a professional army found its way into the Articles of Confederation, Article 4. While armies are allowed under the Constitution, they are supposed to be limited to a two-year duration, they were meant as an emergency measure. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

In the debates leading to the Constitutional Convention, both the Federalists (in favor of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (fearful of a strong central government) denounced the practice of standing armies as grave threats to liberty.

Writing for the Federalists Alexander Hamilton, himself not the greatest proponent of decentralized liberty, reiterated the common saying of the time that standing armies “ought not be kept up, in time of peace.” Federalist, No. 26. In No. 28 Hamilton asked mockingly, against the fact of armed State militias, when could the federal government ever amass a sufficiently threatening army? As Monday morning’s historical quarterback, I suppose the answer was “in about 200 years.” Hamilton also thought the two-year budgetary limitation placed on the army would render it ineffective for tyrannical purposes. Federalist, No. 24. Out of the pocket again, we now have a standing army fighting numerous “wars” despite the absence of a federal budget for four years.

The Anti-Federalists were equally fearful of a central army. In his Tenth Letter, January 24, 1788, “Brutus” (most likely New York judge Robert Yates) warned of two dangers presented by a standing army. First, it could be used by leaders against the people in order to usurp power. Second, the armies themselves could “subvert the forms of government, under whose authority they were raised…” As examples he cited the once free and constitutional Roman Republic and British Empire.

Interestingly, the Second Amendment could have contained anti-army language. The Virginia Convention proposed a Bill of Rights (June 27, 1788), which would have had the second amendment as seventeenth. It would have read: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in times of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as circumstances and protection of the community will admit, and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” I rather like that. The Pennsylvania Minority had put forth a similar proposal on December 18, 1787.

During the forty-fifth Congress, Rep. William Kimmel of Maryland, author of the Posse Comitatus Act, echoed the sentiments of the Founders as he quoted Tacitus, “Is there any escape from a standing army but a well-disciplined militia?” 7 Cong. Rec. 3579. He also quoted Lord Bacon, who remarked of the Tudor years of English history, a “mercenary army is fittest to invade a country but a militia to defend it.” Id. Many were the quotes from members of the House and Senate on similar points.

The issue faded as the 19th Century progressed because it was still taken for granted that free people should be armed. As I noted in Gun Control, the States and the federal government from this period to the present, began to enact various illegal, and progressively worse restrictions on gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment did make appearances in law and court cases though during this period of general dormancy. I will discuss two such cases here.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the Supreme Court ignobly affirmed black slaves were property as opposed to people. However, the Court’s reasoning touched on the 2nd Amendment. If slaves were considered human beings, then they would be entitled to human rights – such as the right to bear arms. This case gave silent acknowledgment to the 2nd Amendment, which law professors somehow overlooked or wrote off. It also slaps their Supreme Court worship in the face. The fallibility of their god also seems lost on them.

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court held the 2nd Amendment only protected firearms with militia “value.” Mr. Miller was arrested for illegal possession of a short-barreled shotgun, one of the weapons regulated under the UnConstitutional 1934 National Firearms Act. I always thought this case made some sense. If the only guns protected are those of use to the militia or the military, then it would seem the people have a right to own those types of weapons. And, if they are entitled to own those, why not allow them all lesser guns (like short-barreled shotguns). Subsequently, shotguns of reduced length came in useful to the army GIs and Marines in Vietnam and other tight, uncomfortable places.

The delusional legal community took Miller to mean something else, something only a law professor could belive – that the 2nd Amendment protects a government’s “right” to keep arms. The deliberate misinterpretation of Miller during the last half of the 20th Century gave rise to the idiotic “collective rights” theory, an impossibility in and of itself. The theory lead to the belief of leftists and statists alike that the 2nd Amendment gave the government the “right” to organize a body such as the National Guard. This was ludicrous. Only individual persons have rights. Individuals with rights can join together in the exercise of those rights, but the rights themselves never acquire group status. The status certainly never transcends from the people, individually speaking, to the government. Governments have powers, not rights.

The point was finally clarified (as if such a plainly worded sentence needs clarification…) by the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases early in our current Century. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the high Court overturned D.C.’s illegal law restricting handgun ownership. The Court also held the Second Amendment did in fact confer upon the people a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The collectivists were crushed. The Court actually noted the Natural Law right of self-defense. The law professors were confused. The opinion limited its reach to federal laws and enclaves (like D.C.) and appended certain language regarding “traditional” uses of firearms. The Court also made notable mention of the proper relationship between the people and the militia, but they did not reach my ultimate conclusion from Miller.

In my humble but professional opinion (I are a Constitutional and firearms law litigator person, after all), the legal opinion rendered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in its earlier hearing and decision of Heller, D.C. v. Parker, 478 F.3d 370 (2007)(Parker was then a co-plaintiff with Heller and several others), was a far better recitation of the 2nd Amendment, its meaning and origins. Judge Laurence Silberman went to great lengths to explain the original meaning of the “militia” and its prerequisite condition of an armed people. I will comment on this subject a little later, in my own words.

I met Judge Silberman at a legal education luncheon (CLE) in 2008, while Heller was pending the Supreme Court. I thanked him for his contribution. However, as is so often my way, I was disgruntled that afternoon and made my usual sarcastic comments to kick off the meeting. CLE’s do that to me. Imagine paying a good sum of money for a decent lunch which you can’t enjoy because some dude or dudette is babbling on about the law. Anyway, I recall referring to D.C. as “the District of Corruption.” I did this before a small gathering of government attorneys and government-dependent attorneys. Judge Silberman gave me a nervous chuckle, the rest of the crowd was aghast at my … honesty.

Anyway, the 2008 opinion was good enough of a start. Two years later the Court added to the new body of 2nd Amendment law.

In MacDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) the Court, in striking down an illegal Chicago law, “incorporated” the effect of the Second Amendment to the States, via the 14th Amendment. Many libertarian scholars are dubious of the theory of incorporation but I will not touch on that here other than to say the 2nd Amendment must be respected by the States. This makes sense, as far as it goes, as no entity may legitimately violate fundamental human rights. The Court also included some dangerous language in the decision, particularly regarding the possibility laws may place “reasonable restrictions” on firearms ownership. The reference may prove a trojan horse for gun owners, especially in light of those restrictions already in place (NFA and GCA) which are now taken for granted. I do not take them so and I have no faith in government to keep any additional restrictions “reasonable.”

Other, newer cases are working their way through the courts, generally with good success. I think the Amendment is finally getting some of the respect it deserves. I also don’t think Congress will act to rashly regarding new restrictions, yet, even in the face of the ridiculous hysteria raised of late.

I began by stating the Second Amendment is about the people resisting government tyranny. I do not advocate herein the violent overthrow of the government. Such action, even if warranted, would likely end in disaster. Besides, given the suicidal tendencies of the federal and most state governments, such action would seem pointless. I said “even if warranted” because once any government exceeds its scope and purpose to the point it becomes a threat to, rather than a defender of, the Liberties of the People (the only real reason for the existence of government), then again, it is the right and duty of the people to shrug off such tyranny. When such action is taken legitimately, it is not an act of rebellion. In fact, at such point, it is the government which is in rebellion and deserving of correction. This may be subject matter for another future column.

The Founders, being highly suspicious of standing armies in the service of a central government, determined to set up a militia as a proper alternative. A “militia” is merely the organization to some degree of all the armed men in a jurisdiction. Every State in the Union still maintains a militia, completely separate from the National Guard. The militia of a given state is generally divided into two classes – the “organized” militia and the unorganized. The organized consists of members of the State defense force, whatever it may be termed. These are voluntary citizen forces under control of the Governor. They are generally neutered these days but retain the ability to become a combat ready force. The unorganized force consists of all able-bodied males (and certain females) between certain ages (adults, generally). I am a proud member of the unorganized Georgia militia!

These militias are primarily at the disposal of the States and can only be utilized by the federal government in certain cases. The main point of this system is that the weapons are supposed to be in the hands of the people, not the government. This is specifically true regarding infantry weapons. A militia member should, today, be able to report for duty with any weapons available to a modern infantryman. This would include fully automatic rifles (including SAWs) and shoulder launcher systems (Stingers, etc.).

We currently are restricted from such weapons, illegally, by the NFA and the GCA and amendments. Also, as a counter to my central premise of militia dominance, the federal government has done a terrible job regulating the militias. The States have all but abdicated their independence and authority to Washington. Washington has also taken advantage of this situation by raising and maintaining huge standing, professional military forces in perpetuity. This is all contrary to the intent and the language of the Constitution. The American people have also undergone a dramatic transformation. Regarding these instant issues, the populace tends to regard militias as dangerous bands of domestic terrorists while literally worshipping the federal Imperial military. How many yellow ribbon decals have you seen promoting the militia?

This leads me to my final point, the concept that so many people miss regarding the Second Amendment. Most historical analysis has focused on the “militia” preface and the “right of the people” action clause, or both together (see Judge Silberman). What everyone seems to miss is the “security of a free state.” A state, according to the Founders and their wisdom could only be preserved by an armed people serving as the militia. The key word here is – “FREE.” Given the decline of liberty, seemingly demanded by the people, can we be said to live in a free state anymore? If we do not, is anything else important? I would, of course, answer affirmatively. I’m not so sure about my fellow countrymen. This may provide material for a future column. Your thoughts?

In my popular Posse Comitatus column, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/posse-comitatus/, I made a possibly confusing and unfair allusion to Caesar bringing about the demise of the Roman Republic and ushering in the Empire. It seems that “crossing the Rubicon” is too simply of an explanation for what really happened. The actual process from republic to empire lasted for decades and involved many actors in addition to Caesar.

The Roman Republic existed from roughly 500 B.C. until 27 B.C. Most republics do not make it that long. Ours, if it can still be credibly called a republic, is coming apart at the seams after only 237 years. The Roman Republic replaced the line of monarchs who had ruled Rome for over two and a half centuries. It was succeeded by the Empire, which lasted from 27 B.C. until the German Odoacer set himself up as the first King of Italy in 476 A.D.

During the Republic the government was operated by a Senate (congress) and one or two Consuls (presidents). Most public officials were limited to one-year terms. Many of these public offices, including the Consuls, survived into the Empire, though with greatly reduced authority. There had been a tremendous amount of political strife for over 100 years before Augustus Caesar (Caesar Divi F. Augustus) became the First Emperor.

Caesar (Julius Caesar of the first Triumvirate) returned from war and was expected or feared to take dictatorial control of the Republic. He became a dictator of sorts, but he never got the chance to fully dominate the Senate, being assassinated on March 15, 44 B.C. His murder at the hands of Casca, Brutus, and Cassius is one of the better known events of ancient history. However, the conspiracy included dozens of Senators. Allegedly (according to Tacitus?), once Caesar was killed, the chief leaders of the conspiracy called out repeatedly to Cicero by name, as if to showcase their good works. It is also alleged Cicero waved off the acts and attention in disgust.

(Cicero, champion of Constitutional republicanism. Google Images).

Many have theorized Cicero was a co-conspirator. I don’t think so. Marcus Tullius Cicero was a lawyer, statesman, Senator, and former Consul (63 B.C.) and is widely considered one of antiquities foremost figures. His influence on Latin language is still felt with prominence today. I quote he frequently as he was one of the most critical opponents of the Constitutional demise and all dictatorial actions. He would be one of my two picks as the Ron Paul of his day, the other being the black-robed Cato. Despite his constant opposition to totalitarianism, I do not think he would have sanctioned murder as a means to eliminate the practice. I think his morals, nobility, and steadfast dedication to the law would have prevented his involvement.

Heedless of his own peril Cicero kept up his criticism of Mark Anthony and Company (the Second Triumvirate) and was, in 43 B.C., labeled an enemy of the state and hunted down mercilessly. He was captured on December 7, 43 B.C. and immediately murdered by Anthony’s troops. His last words (according to Plutarch?) were allegedly: “There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly.” He was decapitated and his head and hands displayed publicly in Rome.

This brutal display of lawlessness and savagery was formerly utilized by would-be or quasi dictators. Gauis Marius and Lucius Sulla had used similar tactics against their enemies. Such horrific treatment was the most high-tech form of intimidation at the time, drones were still more than 2000 years away.

Marius served seven terms (at intervals from 107 – 86 B.C.) as Consul despite laws enacting terms limits. His power was derived from constant warfare and the need for “emergency” powers from the Senate. War and “emergency” powers go hand in hand with dictatorship. If you haven’t watched the news in the past 12 years, perhaps you did, at least, see the three Star Wars prequel movies.

Sulla served two terms as Consul (82 – 81 B.C.) and, like Marius, gained much power as a petty dictator through war powers. Sulla’s wars were not confined to foreign enemies, marching on Rome itself in 82 B.C. The Senate foolishly conferred upon him dictatorial powers for life. These he immediately began to use, murdering 1,000s of enemies, with no semblance of Due Process. Previously, the Republic had prided itself on justice and faithful execution of the laws, rather than of citizens and nobles.

So, you see, Caesar has a product of his times as much as a dictator. His short reign came in the middle of a century marked by Constitutional decline. Caesar is the best remembered name from the period though his actual power differed little from that of his predecessors and successors. He could have done eternally great service to the Republic and perhaps changed centuries of history if he had followed in the footsteps of one of his ancient precursors.

History also remembers Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, mostly out of awe for his humility in power. Cincinnatus was Consul and was granted dictatorial powers during a time of war twice, in 458 B.C. and again in 439 B.C. Unlike 99% of historical figures granted such rare authority, Cincinnatus immediately abandoned his high position once crises abated. Perhaps Caesar had such intention but was not allowed time to exercise it. Perhaps not.

I hope you have seen, within this column, parallels to modern America. To me they seem both unmistakable and also unmistakably dire in their warnings to us.

We currently have a President who, unchallenged essentially, claims the right to murder American citizens without Due Process. At the same time, we have a craven opposition party which, rather than impeach and remove the usurper, propose to give him Constitutional powers beyond his office. All of this, consequently, stems from “emergencies” whether martial or economic. This has become an established pattern since 2001 though it has roots much older.

This year we mark the 100th anniversary of some of the most destructive Acts in our history. In 1913 the 16th and 17th Amendments killed the States’ fading power against the central government and the Federal Reserve began it’s mission to enslave the nation (publicly and privately) in debt while enabling Washington to potentially spend without limit. Around the same time the National Guard was formalized and strengthened, giving Washington military control over the entire nation.

The ensuing 100 years saw an exponential growth in government, the decline of civil liberties, constant foolish wars, and the nationalization of serfdom.

Having recently lost our Cicero and Cato figures to retirement, we can only pray for a latter-day Cincinnatus.